If USC were to go to close to full tuition, i'd say USC. It still may be a good deal. NYU looks -REALLY- expensive if they haven't given you any cash. They say $64k yr/total tuition + R&B + misc, which I think means like 67 or 68 if you buy food, eat dinner, and go out in expensive NY night life. Rounding up to 70, that's a LOT. I'm at UCLA, and the decision for me between USC and UCLA was cost-neutral - USC matched my UCLA total cost but didn't beat it.

USC's nominal cost is the same. On the other hand, I managed to live decently well on about 15k more than tuition in los angeles. I can't think that you could say the same if you were at NYU. USC then, is probably 55k a year in costs. You got 5k a year off?

Then it's like a $60k difference (more, counting interest in your loans), between USC and NYU. I definitely think it could be worth it, especially if you want a sure shot at biglaw.

I generally think the two schools are comparable. I know lots of students from both. At this point (though this is rapidly changing in terms of institutional resources, it's just the alumni base has to catch up for a few years) USC probably has the edge in entertainment law. For things that are "prestige focused", UCLA is on top. They have six times as many clerks, a better academic reputation, and you at least have a shot at academia from UCLA, whereas you almost assuredly don't from USC. Elite government jobs, etc. are a bit easier to come by at UCLA. I think UCLA is a lot more livable, but it has a bigger class size, so maybe it's less homey. Sections are the operative social unit for 1Ls, though, so I think in the long-run, it's better to have more people to branch out to later on in your school career.

Anyone who tries to give you biglaw cutoffs from those schools would be lying to you: i'm at UCLA, and there isn't a coherent pattern that's discernable, not least of which no data gets collected. Like two firms want a 3.6 or higher (i think that would be top 10-20%...), many other s want either a 3.2 or a 3.3 (which is 50%), but lots don't have a requirement, and people under the cutoff do get firm jobs. Some people got nothing out of OCI though, too.

I think these are real differences. Unless you want a clerkship, I would think that the comparative financial aid offered by each school and your commuting issues dictate the choice.

mmmmm...let's start with clerkships, across the board, beginning with SCOTUS. Compare ND with any T2 school. yeah, then let's move on to placement. let's look at firms in the Vault 100 and see how T2 schools stack up to ND. now this is going to be difficult for you botbot since ND doesn't rank it's students. however i think it is a fair bet that top 30% at ND gets you further at Vault 100 firms than top 5% at say Depaul.

In your first post, you said "you would be wrong, top 1/3d is better." Why? "I think it is a fair bet." Not exactly the finest examples of argumentation.

People are on this website, in large part, to gather information about law school and the application process. They are being informed consumers. I'm not sure that this environment is the best place to deter people from trying to go to law school.

Actually, this is the most logical place to try to inform potential consumers that they're making a mistake. I don't think law school is always a mistake, but I am almost positive lots of people on this board are going to regret their decision come graduation time.

I've been trying to figure that out also. It makes no sense! If I remember right, both of those schools have URM below 25%. So who are these people getting at or below 162/163?

Probably people that are interesting (military) or people in the public interest program. Essentially, though, they're admitted as statistical noise to allow Cal to pretend they aren't using illegal affirmative action in admissions.

it could be that cornellians are less efficient when studying. or that the psychology of cornell kids leads them to overstate how much they study, or for NYU people to underestimate how much they study.

Student quality is going to determine this, for two related reasons1) The smarter the students, the faster the professor is going to move. Students with lower credentials are going to have a harder time keeping up. 2) You're on a curve, so even if you're smart, if everyone else is a little bit smarter than you, you might lose out come exam-time.